Are you really so self-absorbed that you presume to make such a decision for anyone else?
Damn right I do, I some things very simply fall into that category, it's also not okay to abuse your kids, or to deny them a basic level of education, for example - and I don't think parents should have any say in that.
your own circumstances have nothing to do with Jimmy Doohan and his kids.
Frankly, I didn't know Doohan personally... and neither did you. He might be one of those folks that finds the idea of abortion reprehensible. Or perhaps he was religious and it was verboten to use birth control.
I do not consider "Because God told me to." an acceptable excuse for unethical behaviour and I never will.
with no knowledge whatsoever of that situation
That's where you wrong, we do have knowledge of the situation, certainly enough to make reasonable judgement on the matter.
You seem to inferring their are extenuating circumstances (which we cannot imagine) that legitimise his decision in this regard. If not, then you would then concede his behaviour was indeed inappropriate it would one would assume.
Unfortunately, it's likely he was just quite a selfish man who placed his own desires ahead of the needs and best interests of any prospective children, as many people (if not most) regrettably do.
I've witnessed where both parents were very much alive, and very much messed up.
That also happens and it's also bad and worthy of equal criticism.
STFU already with your armchair morality lesson
Well apparently some people are living in a moral vacuum and could do with a reality check (even from a heathen atheist). It's also poorly categorised as 'armchair morality', as I say, I practice what I preach and always use contraception during recreational sex (usually relying on more than one form), YMMV.
I would be marvellous if everyone was able to take it in their stride, but unfortunately there are lots of children's homes with deeply disturbed children that bear unfortunate testament to that not being so (and as I've already posted, my own father would also fit into that category, though the circumstances are slightly different).
In truth, it wrecks some peoples lives, in the case of my own father (who I grew up without), who - being adopted - never knew his parents and when he found this out his life took a nose dive. My stepfather died in my early 20's (from cancer), even as an adult (let alone a child) I still wish he was around to talk to and give and take advice from.
We should also not forget, that at age 80, Mr. Doohan will have suffered quite significant degradation in cell quality and this will impact on his sperm and the genes passed on (and so, unfortunately in his children). The risks are not quite as pronounced as they are in women (who at just age 45 have a 1 in 30 likelihood of having a baby with Down syndrome, for example), but they are there none the less (and might not crop up till much later).
What business is it of yours if someone wants to have a kid?
At 80, are you kidding me? Are you really that selfish that you think that is acceptable and responsible behaviour?
AFAIC, children are not mere 'property' you may have and treat as you see fit, they are human beings and you have some level of moral responsibility towards them. YMMV (and apparently, does).
Do you really care so little for others, particularly potential offspring, that you would be happy to see them grow up never having know one of their parents? If so, then I regret to inform you that this would make you an asshole as well.
Jimmy Doohan was worth a million of you, you jealous little git.
How bizarre, why on earth do you think I'm jealous of him? Trust me, I'm really not. I can do a proper Scottish accent for a start (being Scottish) and trust me it sounds nothing like his take.
Having grown up without a father (because he was so screwed up over never knowing his parents, as he was adopted, that he fell into a spiral of self destruction) and lost another in the last couple of years (in the form of my stepfather, from cancer) I can honestly say that though I would dearly like to have children some day, I would never do so if I thought I wasn't going to be around to support them growing up.
These things are not always planned. It's easy to call other people assholes when you can imagine whatever circumstances you like to support your judgement. Jackass.
Your right it *is* easy to criticise people who have children at such an advanced age!
I don't know about you, when I have sex with women who I don't wish to have children with, I always use a condom (even when they have been on the pill, or had a coil fitted).
Responsible sexual behaviour is even more important when you know you'll never live to see your child grow up (he was already seriously ill by 2000), and you'll certainly never be able to play an active part in their lives.
It's not 'okay' even if it was an 'accident', it's still reprehensible behaviour on his part.
Indeed, just so everyone is aware, the PSP already has a straight forward (mini) USB interface (having bought an import model without any cables, I use a regular USB cable to mount it's Memory Stick on my PowerBook, for example).
So, this guy has plugged a USB keyboard, into a device with a USB interface. It still has no software support, but err, it fit's physically. Whoohoo!
This sort of thing really bites when you read all the great stories that never get accepted (though people posting them in comments, and though having interesting articles rejected in the past, only to see them get posted coming from someone else several days later, but with a brain dead write-up).
So, anyone got anything that might actually be interesting to share?
I really can't see the point on downloading a movie, when I can easly rent a DVD... I can do it by phone, or online, and it will be delivered faster than any download.
Actually you can download an entire feature length movie (say 600-800 MB in MPEG 4) in less hour with 'bog standard' consumer DSL (i.e. @ 1.5-2 Mbps), and many people have faster than that (especially from cable providers, and in Europe from unbundled telecoms operators offering services like VSDL).
With this sort of technology, you can start playing videos before they have downloaded (not technically streaming, just starting once the first few minutes are down), meaning you can start watching one at home before your average Blockbuster customer has even reached their local store.
In fact, you can do this today with DivX On Demand which also allows you to burn completely downloaded movies to DVD, to play on your DivX equipped set top DVD player. The biggest hurdled to adoption at present is the quality of movies on offer (it's pretty much a list of B-Movies).
Also, I can't immagine how movie downloads can drag people's interest without an easy way to burn them into DVDs, or even VCDs, ITMS way. And I doubt that the movie industry would allow something like this.
Making them easy to burn is trivial (well, it seems hard for a lot of vendors, but it's really easy in practice), getting the movie industry to adopt it is indeed the tricky part.
The DivX On Demand service has *roughly* the right idea, in that they burn DVD which will only play on your player, the lame part is if you have multiple players you need to burn separate discs for each one (which it lets you do, but it's a hassle, and it means you can't just take a disc round to a friends house).
This can be solved either by smarter, network enabled players (which a lot of parties, including companies like AOL, are looking at - and are available to purchase now, though they are by and large pretty flakey at the moment), or by 'closed' wireless video senders (which operated somewhat like the way Apple Airport units do in streaming sound, but in a closed way).
I fully expect Microsoft will take the same sort of route they have always taken, by focusing almost exclusively on selling their vision to content producers, rather than focusing on making a product that appeals to the market (and watching as the content producers hop on board).
Apple have been successful with their music store because of course they have made it easy for novice users to access, purchase and manage content. The Microsoft media player is in stark contrast a hideously confusing application as far as most people are concerned, and is an excellent example of why Microsoft will not succeed unless they radically change their approach (which on past form, I do not expect they will).
Getting buy-in from publishers is essential in the long run, but by pandering to them to the extent Microsoft have done (in an attempt to get them on-board), all semblance of a marketable product has been lost, because the focus has been on building a product they want to produce, rather than on one people actually want to buy.
Even if all the major content production companies vow to get behind a Microsoft devised solution, consumers will just largely ignore it and continue to rely on established ways of getting content (either legal DVD's or illegal P2P downloads) until they are offered something they are actually comfortable using.
You have to wonder what's wrong with Microsoft's corporate structure when, with their vast resources and many talented people, they can't even build a useable media player (let alone content delivery and management system). It's so tragic, it's funny.
Pardon? I thought I made it fairly clear that I am judging your post solely on your inability to spell "lobbyist".
That's why your wrong (but thanks for digging yourself a deeper hole, I'm enjoying this!).
Isn't it? If nothing else, you perhaps learned how to spell "lobbyist".
Oh dear, I see I'm going to have to point it out to you, because you're apparently bright not enough to work it out on your own.
It's correctly spelt elsewhere in the post (I tried hinting to this, but you still were unable pick up on it). This means your assertion that I am unable to spell it correctly is err, manifestly wrong (as it would appear to be a isolated error, rather than a case of not actually knowing how to spell the word as you assert).
Your ad hominem argument is inadequate, and would get you marked down in the lowest level logic class. The pages are pretty good.
I found it sensationalist and intentionaly misleading myself (having compared the charges with the evidence), YMMV.
For example, because I really ought to give an example to back this up:
While the figures for the number of animals put down is very distasteful, the figures given are in line with other large animal welfare groups in terms of percentage of animals put down.
It's true the figures much smaller for some groups - specifically for smaller groups - this is in part due to disparities in scale, and in greater part due to the fact that smaller groups often simply refuse to take animals when they are at capacity. Many of these groups have a policy of never putting healthy animals down, which is the driving force for them being set up in the first place (because they are aware this is what will happen if the animals end up at a larger shelter).
It's would seem entirely incorrect for this site to claim 'hypocrisy', as they do, on the grounds that PETA put animals that cannot be homed down, at the same time campaigning about the way animals are treated within the meat industry. The two actions do not seem incongruous.
However, I was not, and am not interested in, engaging in avocation with regard to PETA, I'm merely attempting to giving accurate and complete information and to put the information given in context.
Somewhat separately, with regard to the following:
Ironically, children are the easiest to sway because can be frightened with gore.
Personally, if the information and images are entirely accurate (and accurately represented, in a non sensationalist and objective way - especially with children), then I have no problem with this whatsoever. If we can't justify our actions as a society to our own children, it does seem to raise the issue that perhaps it is our actions that are questionable.
So they're funded by corporations. They have every right to bring abuses by PETA to light, particularly if others don't.
I said that in the very first paragraph of the post your replying to...
I really don't see your point at all.
Working out why "large (billion) dollar corporations setting up fake grass roots campaigns to discredit and damage the repuation of public pressure groups they are diometrically opposed to, while pretending to care about the very same things the pressure group does" is a Bad Thing (TM), is left an exercise to the reader.
Obviously this is not their main business, but they have licensed the use of such trivial nonsense as 1 Click Shopping to third parties (Apple, certainly).
I should think they have made a tidy sum doing so too - more than the entire turnover or networth of a smal time online retailer, and many times more than they could hope to afford.
While no political group like PETA is above suspicion or critisim, either for matters of policy for the actions of it's members, readers should be aware the 'petakillsanimals.com' is in fact funded by commercial special interest groups in order to spread what can best be described as FUD.
It is run by a professional Washington lobbiest (and lawyer) named Richard Berman, and funded by companies that sell and produce animal products. They have been outed by the Washington Post, as well as by special interest groups on the other side of the fence.
To quote the Post:
The group was founded about 10 years ago with tobacco-company and restaurant money to fight smoking curbs in restaurants. Back then, the group called itself Guest Choice Network. But it changed its name in 2001, as it shifted its focus to food and beverage issues, raised by concerns about obesity, mad cow disease and genetically modified products.
The group in question has access to vast sums of money, clearly enough to cover the errection of billboards in Times Square to advertise the site, not to mention being able to afford the services of Mr Berman. It seems fairly clear it's rather more money than PETA have access to (dispite them being more of the most profile chariable organisations in the US). If this is in doubt, it's worth pointing out that a cheif founder of Berman's group is the worlds largest tabbaco company, the notorious multi billion dollar Philip Morris.
Bizzare that people should feel the need to defend a fake 'grass roots' campaign run by a special interest food, alchohol and tobbacoo lobbyist and lawyer, but it takes all sorts.
-------
With regard to the article, I thought the military have had this sort of thing for decades. IIRC early versions going back at least to the Vietnam war and were in use up until fairly recently (if not still in use today - which I would think they they probably are) basically used treated bandages with 'supeglue' to hold people together at least till they reached a medevac point.
I can only imagine the reason why the use of this sort of bandage might not be more mainstream, is that it's it's not as useful in a civilian urban enviornment where most people are within reach of emergency services and hospitals, making the need for this sort of 'stop gap' approach somewhat redundant.
Though the specific element aimed at speeding clotting could be useful (assming it doesn't kill you if your allergic to shellfish, or cause a blood clot which travels to your arteries and then kills you) I can't see actual ground up shrimp being a very economic way to meet demand, and have to think it would be far cheaper to synthasize a similar compound in the long run.
I sure hope this doesn't degenerate more. This smells of racism.
I concur.
What twisted mind could even associate little Arfa with anything like that is something that escapes my comprehension. Have you no feelings for children? Are you so isolated in a cubicle you can't recognize a wonderful child when you see one? Have you ever considered this will be archived? That words can hurt people's feelings, the damage you can do with words? I shouldn't even post, as I feed you trolls.
You might (and this is just a suggestion) want to try following the thread more closely and seeing who's written what.
So, lest you think both of you can get away with such sickly posts and behaviour, I dennounce you. You disgust me. Deeply. Let it be said that not all posters here on slashdot are capable of such behavior, and let's appologize.
That's a co-incidence, your lack of ability to follow a threaded discussion deeply offends me.
Under-achieving eh? How do you explain the fact that of the London suicide bombers was aided by a now disappeared PhD student studying Chemistry?
Exactly - one of the his coaches, NOT one of the actual bombers, was PhD student (Osama Bin Laden is quite well educated too, but you don't see him volunteering to blow himself up).
They all lived in a very poor, violent and high crime working class areas (or perhaps more accurately, a non-working area, given the primary industry is the collection of social security). Living in poor areas is true of majority of Muslims in the UK, particularly in the London area where unemployment in the Muslim community is at 30%.
Walking round east London (or Leeds, or Bradford for that matter) and you'll get some idea of their living standards (just not at night).
The problem the west has isn't the fact that these people are disenfrancised [sic] misfits
I disagree in the strongest possible terms, suicide bombers are in fact usually unsuccessful males, this is exactly what makes them prime target for recruitment. Successful people with high levels of self esteem aren't easily persuaded to blow themselves up in the name of religion.
If they don't feel disenfranchised by the society they live in then there is less chance of them being turned into suicide bombers by manipulative, politically motivated groups.
I think in any job the only people who should be there are those that have proven their worth. This OTT political correctness/quota balancing act in lots of workplaces is just dumb.
I'm not sure what article you read, but I saw nothing in it that suggested weighting or quota's in recruitment.
She merely made a simple point, that it should be (roughly) balanced.
The lack of women in the sector is a reflection of the biases and unequal pressures society places on both men and women entirely arbitrarily. This is a sign of disfunction in our society, and that the prejudice (that adversely effects men and women, and prevents them from pursuing careers they wish to) should be eliminated.
The overwhelming disparity in technical fields such as software development, network engineering is undeniable, and I don't believe for one minute it's due to a lack of interest in the field, but to lack of support and encouragement (something I have seen up close, having seen young women actively discouraged from taking up working with computers).
Women do have to work just as hard to break into profession fields, and - in the private sector at least [1] - they get no artificial support (e.g. in the form of 'positive discrimination'), yet they still face suspicion and prejudice in the work place purely on the grounds of their gender.
Why immediately cry foul when the subject of mere equality is raised?
[1] In the private sector, positive discrimination is usually illegal (within the US and EU certainly), though certainly governments routinely unofficially discriminate by actively seeking to redress existing imbalances, chiefly to gain political capital.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you really so self-absorbed that you presume to make such a decision for anyone else?
Damn right I do, I some things very simply fall into that category, it's also not okay to abuse your kids, or to deny them a basic level of education, for example - and I don't think parents should have any say in that.
your own circumstances have nothing to do with Jimmy Doohan and his kids.
Erm, other than the blindingly obvious, no.
Frankly, I didn't know Doohan personally... and neither did you. He might be one of those folks that finds the idea of abortion reprehensible. Or perhaps he was religious and it was verboten to use birth control.
I do not consider "Because God told me to." an acceptable excuse for unethical behaviour and I never will.
with no knowledge whatsoever of that situation
That's where you wrong, we do have knowledge of the situation, certainly enough to make reasonable judgement on the matter.
You seem to inferring their are extenuating circumstances (which we cannot imagine) that legitimise his decision in this regard. If not, then you would then concede his behaviour was indeed inappropriate it would one would assume.
Unfortunately, it's likely he was just quite a selfish man who placed his own desires ahead of the needs and best interests of any prospective children, as many people (if not most) regrettably do.
I've witnessed where both parents were very much alive, and very much messed up.
That also happens and it's also bad and worthy of equal criticism.
STFU already with your armchair morality lesson
Well apparently some people are living in a moral vacuum and could do with a reality check (even from a heathen atheist). It's also poorly categorised as 'armchair morality', as I say, I practice what I preach and always use contraception during recreational sex (usually relying on more than one form), YMMV.
I would be marvellous if everyone was able to take it in their stride, but unfortunately there are lots of children's homes with deeply disturbed children that bear unfortunate testament to that not being so (and as I've already posted, my own father would also fit into that category, though the circumstances are slightly different).
In truth, it wrecks some peoples lives, in the case of my own father (who I grew up without), who - being adopted - never knew his parents and when he found this out his life took a nose dive. My stepfather died in my early 20's (from cancer), even as an adult (let alone a child) I still wish he was around to talk to and give and take advice from.
We should also not forget, that at age 80, Mr. Doohan will have suffered quite significant degradation in cell quality and this will impact on his sperm and the genes passed on (and so, unfortunately in his children). The risks are not quite as pronounced as they are in women (who at just age 45 have a 1 in 30 likelihood of having a baby with Down syndrome, for example), but they are there none the less (and might not crop up till much later).
What business is it of yours if someone wants to have a kid?
At 80, are you kidding me? Are you really that selfish that you think that is acceptable and responsible behaviour?
AFAIC, children are not mere 'property' you may have and treat as you see fit, they are human beings and you have some level of moral responsibility towards them. YMMV (and apparently, does).
Do you really care so little for others, particularly potential offspring, that you would be happy to see them grow up never having know one of their parents? If so, then I regret to inform you that this would make you an asshole as well.
Jimmy Doohan was worth a million of you, you jealous little git.
How bizarre, why on earth do you think I'm jealous of him? Trust me, I'm really not. I can do a proper Scottish accent for a start (being Scottish) and trust me it sounds nothing like his take.
Having grown up without a father (because he was so screwed up over never knowing his parents, as he was adopted, that he fell into a spiral of self destruction) and lost another in the last couple of years (in the form of my stepfather, from cancer) I can honestly say that though I would dearly like to have children some day, I would never do so if I thought I wasn't going to be around to support them growing up.
These things are not always planned. It's easy to call other people assholes when you can imagine whatever circumstances you like to support your judgement. Jackass.
Your right it *is* easy to criticise people who have children at such an advanced age!
I don't know about you, when I have sex with women who I don't wish to have children with, I always use a condom (even when they have been on the pill, or had a coil fitted).
Responsible sexual behaviour is even more important when you know you'll never live to see your child grow up (he was already seriously ill by 2000), and you'll certainly never be able to play an active part in their lives.
It's not 'okay' even if it was an 'accident', it's still reprehensible behaviour on his part.
Modded -1 Famebait, so I'm going to repeat myself (because I've got plenty of karma, and it's a perfectly valid point).
----
You will be missed Mr. Doohan.
Mostly by his 5 year old son I should think.
The mind boggles - how much of an asshole do you have to be to have children at that age?
----
He does indeed have a 5 year old child (variously reported as a daughter or son, depending on source, I don't know which is correct).
I assert that if you decide a child at 80, you are an asshole.
I don't know what kind of moral vacuum the previous moderator lives in, but that's not acceptable behaviour in my book.
You will be missed Mr. Doohan.
Mostly by his 5 year old son I should think.
The mind boggles - how much of an asshole do you have to be to have children at that age?
Dude, you think CLOUDS are newsworthy
To be fair, it's a fuck of of a lot better than a story about someone plugging in a USB keyboard.
Shame on the loser moderator for modding the post Offtopic!
At least it's bloody news, not just some muppet who's plugged a USB keyboard into a device with a USB slot.
Indeed, just so everyone is aware, the PSP already has a straight forward (mini) USB interface (having bought an import model without any cables, I use a regular USB cable to mount it's Memory Stick on my PowerBook, for example).
s -mammatus.html
So, this guy has plugged a USB keyboard, into a device with a USB interface. It still has no software support, but err, it fit's physically. Whoohoo!
This sort of thing really bites when you read all the great stories that never get accepted (though people posting them in comments, and though having interesting articles rejected in the past, only to see them get posted coming from someone else several days later, but with a brain dead write-up).
So, anyone got anything that might actually be interesting to share?
I saw this today, which I think is pretty cool:
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/nebraska/june2004hasting
"Do not masturbate with iPod Shuffle."
I really can't see the point on downloading a movie, when I can easly rent a DVD... I can do it by phone, or online, and it will be delivered faster than any download.
Actually you can download an entire feature length movie (say 600-800 MB in MPEG 4) in less hour with 'bog standard' consumer DSL (i.e. @ 1.5-2 Mbps), and many people have faster than that (especially from cable providers, and in Europe from unbundled telecoms operators offering services like VSDL).
With this sort of technology, you can start playing videos before they have downloaded (not technically streaming, just starting once the first few minutes are down), meaning you can start watching one at home before your average Blockbuster customer has even reached their local store.
In fact, you can do this today with DivX On Demand which also allows you to burn completely downloaded movies to DVD, to play on your DivX equipped set top DVD player. The biggest hurdled to adoption at present is the quality of movies on offer (it's pretty much a list of B-Movies).
Also, I can't immagine how movie downloads can drag people's interest without an easy way to burn them into DVDs, or even VCDs, ITMS way. And I doubt that the movie industry would allow something like this.
Making them easy to burn is trivial (well, it seems hard for a lot of vendors, but it's really easy in practice), getting the movie industry to adopt it is indeed the tricky part.
The DivX On Demand service has *roughly* the right idea, in that they burn DVD which will only play on your player, the lame part is if you have multiple players you need to burn separate discs for each one (which it lets you do, but it's a hassle, and it means you can't just take a disc round to a friends house).
This can be solved either by smarter, network enabled players (which a lot of parties, including companies like AOL, are looking at - and are available to purchase now, though they are by and large pretty flakey at the moment), or by 'closed' wireless video senders (which operated somewhat like the way Apple Airport units do in streaming sound, but in a closed way).
I fully expect Microsoft will take the same sort of route they have always taken, by focusing almost exclusively on selling their vision to content producers, rather than focusing on making a product that appeals to the market (and watching as the content producers hop on board).
Apple have been successful with their music store because of course they have made it easy for novice users to access, purchase and manage content. The Microsoft media player is in stark contrast a hideously confusing application as far as most people are concerned, and is an excellent example of why Microsoft will not succeed unless they radically change their approach (which on past form, I do not expect they will).
Getting buy-in from publishers is essential in the long run, but by pandering to them to the extent Microsoft have done (in an attempt to get them on-board), all semblance of a marketable product has been lost, because the focus has been on building a product they want to produce, rather than on one people actually want to buy.
Even if all the major content production companies vow to get behind a Microsoft devised solution, consumers will just largely ignore it and continue to rely on established ways of getting content (either legal DVD's or illegal P2P downloads) until they are offered something they are actually comfortable using.
You have to wonder what's wrong with Microsoft's corporate structure when, with their vast resources and many talented people, they can't even build a useable media player (let alone content delivery and management system). It's so tragic, it's funny.
Oh that's classic!
"Err no wait, I wasn't wrong, I was trolling (see look I'm doing it now!) - Err Blue! No yell... Argggg!"
Allow me to amend my statement to "you perhaps learned how to spell lobbyist consistently"
Nope, too late - nil points pour vous!
Pardon? I thought I made it fairly clear that I am judging your post solely on your inability to spell "lobbyist".
That's why your wrong (but thanks for digging yourself a deeper hole, I'm enjoying this!).
Isn't it? If nothing else, you perhaps learned how to spell "lobbyist".
Oh dear, I see I'm going to have to point it out to you, because you're apparently bright not enough to work it out on your own.
It's correctly spelt elsewhere in the post (I tried hinting to this, but you still were unable pick up on it). This means your assertion that I am unable to spell it correctly is err, manifestly wrong (as it would appear to be a isolated error, rather than a case of not actually knowing how to spell the word as you assert).
So thanks for playing, but better luck next time.
Your ad hominem argument is inadequate, and would get you marked down in the lowest level logic class. The pages are pretty good.
I found it sensationalist and intentionaly misleading myself (having compared the charges with the evidence), YMMV.
For example, because I really ought to give an example to back this up:
While the figures for the number of animals put down is very distasteful, the figures given are in line with other large animal welfare groups in terms of percentage of animals put down.
It's true the figures much smaller for some groups - specifically for smaller groups - this is in part due to disparities in scale, and in greater part due to the fact that smaller groups often simply refuse to take animals when they are at capacity. Many of these groups have a policy of never putting healthy animals down, which is the driving force for them being set up in the first place (because they are aware this is what will happen if the animals end up at a larger shelter).
It's would seem entirely incorrect for this site to claim 'hypocrisy', as they do, on the grounds that PETA put animals that cannot be homed down, at the same time campaigning about the way animals are treated within the meat industry. The two actions do not seem incongruous.
However, I was not, and am not interested in, engaging in avocation with regard to PETA, I'm merely attempting to giving accurate and complete information and to put the information given in context.
Somewhat separately, with regard to the following:
Ironically, children are the easiest to sway because can be frightened with gore.
Personally, if the information and images are entirely accurate (and accurately represented, in a non sensationalist and objective way - especially with children), then I have no problem with this whatsoever. If we can't justify our actions as a society to our own children, it does seem to raise the issue that perhaps it is our actions that are questionable.
While it may seem petty and irrational, I'd never trust the word of someone who can't spell "lobbyist"
Bzzt, wrong! Apparently you didn't read the entire post.
Too much at once for you was it?
You didn't make it as far as any of the links either it seems.
How marvellously amusing!
So they're funded by corporations. They have every right to bring abuses by PETA to light, particularly if others don't.
I said that in the very first paragraph of the post your replying to...
I really don't see your point at all.
Working out why "large (billion) dollar corporations setting up fake grass roots campaigns to discredit and damage the repuation of public pressure groups they are diometrically opposed to, while pretending to care about the very same things the pressure group does" is a Bad Thing (TM), is left an exercise to the reader.
They don't pimp IP for a living.
To be fair, I think he's got something of a point: http://store.apple.com/
Obviously this is not their main business, but they have licensed the use of such trivial nonsense as 1 Click Shopping to third parties (Apple, certainly).
I should think they have made a tidy sum doing so too - more than the entire turnover or networth of a smal time online retailer, and many times more than they could hope to afford.
While no political group like PETA is above suspicion or critisim, either for matters of policy for the actions of it's members, readers should be aware the 'petakillsanimals.com' is in fact funded by commercial special interest groups in order to spread what can best be described as FUD.
It is run by a professional Washington lobbiest (and lawyer) named Richard Berman, and funded by companies that sell and produce animal products. They have been outed by the Washington Post, as well as by special interest groups on the other side of the fence.
To quote the Post:
The group was founded about 10 years ago with tobacco-company and restaurant money to fight smoking curbs in restaurants. Back then, the group called itself Guest Choice Network. But it changed its name in 2001, as it shifted its focus to food and beverage issues, raised by concerns about obesity, mad cow disease and genetically modified products.
The group in question has access to vast sums of money, clearly enough to cover the errection of billboards in Times Square to advertise the site, not to mention being able to afford the services of Mr Berman. It seems fairly clear it's rather more money than PETA have access to (dispite them being more of the most profile chariable organisations in the US). If this is in doubt, it's worth pointing out that a cheif founder of Berman's group is the worlds largest tabbaco company, the notorious multi billion dollar Philip Morris.
Bizzare that people should feel the need to defend a fake 'grass roots' campaign run by a special interest food, alchohol and tobbacoo lobbyist and lawyer, but it takes all sorts.
-------
With regard to the article, I thought the military have had this sort of thing for decades. IIRC early versions going back at least to the Vietnam war and were in use up until fairly recently (if not still in use today - which I would think they they probably are) basically used treated bandages with 'supeglue' to hold people together at least till they reached a medevac point.
I can only imagine the reason why the use of this sort of bandage might not be more mainstream, is that it's it's not as useful in a civilian urban enviornment where most people are within reach of emergency services and hospitals, making the need for this sort of 'stop gap' approach somewhat redundant.
Though the specific element aimed at speeding clotting could be useful (assming it doesn't kill you if your allergic to shellfish, or cause a blood clot which travels to your arteries and then kills you) I can't see actual ground up shrimp being a very economic way to meet demand, and have to think it would be far cheaper to synthasize a similar compound in the long run.
Muppet alert!
I sure hope this doesn't degenerate more. This smells of racism.
I concur.
What twisted mind could even associate little Arfa with anything like that is something that escapes my comprehension. Have you no feelings for children? Are you so isolated in a cubicle you can't recognize a wonderful child when you see one? Have you ever considered this will be archived? That words can hurt people's feelings, the damage you can do with words? I shouldn't even post, as I feed you trolls.
You might (and this is just a suggestion) want to try following the thread more closely and seeing who's written what.
So, lest you think both of you can get away with such sickly posts and behaviour, I dennounce you. You disgust me. Deeply.
Let it be said that not all posters here on slashdot are capable of such behavior, and let's appologize.
That's a co-incidence, your lack of ability to follow a threaded discussion deeply offends me.
Under-achieving eh? How do you explain the fact that of the London suicide bombers was aided by a now disappeared PhD student studying Chemistry?
Exactly - one of the his coaches, NOT one of the actual bombers, was PhD student (Osama Bin Laden is quite well educated too, but you don't see him volunteering to blow himself up).
They all lived in a very poor, violent and high crime working class areas (or perhaps more accurately, a non-working area, given the primary industry is the collection of social security). Living in poor areas is true of majority of Muslims in the UK, particularly in the London area where unemployment in the Muslim community is at 30%.
Walking round east London (or Leeds, or Bradford for that matter) and you'll get some idea of their living standards (just not at night).
The problem the west has isn't the fact that these people are disenfrancised [sic] misfits
I disagree in the strongest possible terms, suicide bombers are in fact usually unsuccessful males, this is exactly what makes them prime target for recruitment. Successful people with high levels of self esteem aren't easily persuaded to blow themselves up in the name of religion.
If they don't feel disenfranchised by the society they live in then there is less chance of them being turned into suicide bombers by manipulative, politically motivated groups.
... either that or she will blow herself up in some european subway.
Predominately suicide bombers have been rather unsuccessful, under-achiving young men.
I think we are safe from young Arfa, who doesn't appear to fit that description.
I think in any job the only people who should be there are those that have proven their worth.
This OTT political correctness/quota balancing act in lots of workplaces is just dumb.
I'm not sure what article you read, but I saw nothing in it that suggested weighting or quota's in recruitment.
She merely made a simple point, that it should be (roughly) balanced.
The lack of women in the sector is a reflection of the biases and unequal pressures society places on both men and women entirely arbitrarily. This is a sign of disfunction in our society, and that the prejudice (that adversely effects men and women, and prevents them from pursuing careers they wish to) should be eliminated.
The overwhelming disparity in technical fields such as software development, network engineering is undeniable, and I don't believe for one minute it's due to a lack of interest in the field, but to lack of support and encouragement (something I have seen up close, having seen young women actively discouraged from taking up working with computers).
Women do have to work just as hard to break into profession fields, and - in the private sector at least [1] - they get no artificial support (e.g. in the form of 'positive discrimination'), yet they still face suspicion and prejudice in the work place purely on the grounds of their gender.
Why immediately cry foul when the subject of mere equality is raised?
[1] In the private sector, positive discrimination is usually illegal (within the US and EU certainly), though certainly governments routinely unofficially discriminate by actively seeking to redress existing imbalances, chiefly to gain political capital.
I thought the point was to simply root as many boxes as possible.